Another day with several interesting articles in the Times. Too many to make an elaborate commentary on each one individually therefore, I leave here a few excerpts and their context:From article 1:The execution of Mr. Broom, 53, was postponed Tuesday after technicians tried and failed for more than two hours to maintain an IV connection in order to inject him with lethal drugs.The death penalty issue again, this time a convicted rapist-murderer (who, by the way, claims innocence, as I suppose most would even if guilty, though past events should teach us better), which may raise the argument that this monster is just getting the suffering he deserves, since he presumably induced it before. Makes me wonder if the society that willingly decides to inflict such pain (as in a failed execution attempt) is not a monster itself.
From article 2:
Mr. Skidelsky observes: “His conclusion was that the pursuit of money — what he called ‘love of money’ — was justified only to the extent that it led to a ‘good life.’ And a good life was not what made people better off: it was what made them good. To make the world ethically better was the only justifiable purpose of economic striving.”Apropos of Keynesian economics. My thoughts on this go beyond the current heated debate on the state of macroeconomics. Economics with the purpose of an ethically better society has a name: Sociology. From an economist point of view, the best economic outcome should emerge from the market's invisible hand... it's been like that since Adam Smith. In the event of market failure, the government is there to provide corrections. Now, does this mean that if the best economic outcome differs from the most ethical one (necessarily subjective in nature), the definition of ethics should be government enforced? Well, I have my sincere doubts with respect to government's ethically imposed values... something 20th century history illuminates pretty well.
From article 3:
But despite our infatuation with those who grow, butcher, cook, style, photograph and review our food, we still dismiss the people with whom we have the most contact in the food world: our waiters. (...) It’s a shame, but the service is often the least satisfying piece of dining out.The author argues for the adoption of a service charge (as in Europe) in American restaurants to provide incentives for better service by waiters. Growing up in Europe and having lived nine years in US, I could not disagree more. American service -- in which the customer unknowingly goes through an organized check list of activities: first you get seated, then you are offered the menues while placing the drink order, then you place the food order, then you get the food, then you are asked if everything is according to your liking, then you get dessert and then you get the check... stages separated from each other by about five minutes, maybe a bit longer to get the food, but not overly so -- completely dwarfs the European system in which pretty much you're mostly left on your own having to wave at the waiter (which most of the time doesn't see you or pretends not to) everytime you need something, may it be extra or not. This happens pretty much everywhere in continental Europe, whether in Portugal or the Netherlands, just to pick two sufficiently different countries. It's fine if you grew up in such a system or if you experience it on vacation, but in principle, I think incentives for good service are better set in the US.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário